User talk:HJ Mitchell

This page is currently protected due to vandalism. If you cannot edit this page but wish to leave me a message, you may post on this page instead.

Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

RFC: United States cities

Thanks for taking the time to review and close this rather tedious RFC. I have only one minor quibble. You said in your closing remarks that the consensus was to retain the existing guideline. My reading was that it would be more correct to say that there was a lack of consensus to change. Not quite the same thing. No biggie, however. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 03:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reviewer

Thanks for your approval. :) --Aleenf1 06:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help during the recent edit war at the karate article

It had been a while since I have seen so hot a war<g>. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is now an IP making the same edit war.[1] Could you take a look? Thanks jmcw (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've hard blocked the IP for 48 hours, so whoever's logged out won't be able to edit even if they log in. It'll be interesting to see who doesn't come back when their own block expires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

<G> jmcw (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction?

[2] Yes? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Woops! Yes, that's what I meant, thanks! 19:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Template issue

I added a new line which wont show up on the article here. Could u fix that please? Someone65 (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for kindly letting me know about the DYK. Much appreciated.--Storye book (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User:SharkEmpress01 back as User:Whitetiger01?

Hello HJ Mitchell, you recently blocked User:SharkEmpress01 for being a vandalism-only account, but it seems that editor is back under a different name, User:Whitetiger01, adding back the same vandalism of Alli Live to the same articles. I added a suspected sockpuppet to Whitetiger's talk page but looking at their contributions I guess SharkEmpress01 was the actual sockpuppet made up to try a keep an article from being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonnie (Singer) under the name User:SharkEmpress13. If you too feel this is a sockpuppet (of sorts) trying to evade a block, I would appreciate it if you would block this account too. Thank you for time in reading this. BTW, I love your LOLcat picture. Aspects (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for the heads up! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I'd like to complain about an editor on this page Talk:History of Hollyoaks who has been accusing me of ownership of the article, implying I am not capable of grammar because I didn't attend Cambridge like he did, telling me he is fed up with me when I didn't do anything wrong, taking the moral high ground on everything and labeling himself as supreme in knowledge, personal attacks then follow.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK notification

Many thanks for the DYK Our Lady of Victory Church (Manhattan).---James R (talk)

You're welcome. Chances are I didn't do much, but my sig lands on your talk page because I was the last human to touch the hook! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed autopatroller flag

Hi HJ. I have removed User:Racepacket's autopatroller flag (as well as reviewer) that you granted. I think this warning will make the reason why self-evident. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Total Club Hits

Re your removal of the prod's on Total Club Hits and Total Club Hits 2, that's the first time I've ever seen a prod procedurally declined because its been deleted by prod before, are you sure that's correct?--Jac16888^Talk 10:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting says "If the article has already been deleted, please go to Requests for undeletion". If we take the line that an article which has been deleted via PROD can, if recreated, never be deleted again except via AfD, then this is redundant: the advice becomes "If the article has already been deleted, just go ahead and recreate it". I can't find anything in either Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Deletion policy that seems to me to mean that the prohibition on restoring a removed PROD extends also to placing a PROD on a newly created article where a previous one was PRODDED. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if the article has been re-created, then surely the deletion is controversial? If I'd deleted the article, it could have just been re-created next week and PRODded again and we'd be going round in circles. Someone obviously objects to the deletion or they wouldn't have re-created it, so it should go to AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:PROD says "An article may be PRODed only once". That prohibition doesn't draw any distinction between prods that have been removed, and those that have resulted in deletion then recreation. Any previous prod prohibits a subsequent prod, as it did here. WP:REFUND is certainly not made redundant -- it is when the previous version is sought by the creator. The creator also has the opportunity just to recreate without the previous history. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. HJ Mitchell and Mkativerata have persuaded me. However, if a completely different article on a different topic is written under the same title would that be a different matter? If so, there is the "where do we draw the line?" question. (However, that is not really relevant in this case, as it is an essentially similar article on the same subject.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't decline a PROD if it was a totally different subject. I've seen more than one article written on a politician at a title where there was once an article on a footballer or something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

It appears to me that those two edits ( 1 2 ) might be in a violation of the topic ban, according to the article talk page header. I'm not sure I'm correct in my assessment. What would be an appropriate procedure here? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say no. This was a query SD raised at the start and I explicitly said that I didn't have a problem with him editing articles that aren't predominantly about the Arab-Israeli conflict providing he didn't edit the material that was specifically to do with said conflict. As far as I can see, the material is disputed, but for reasons other than Israel. When I made the topic ban, I intentionally phrased it so as not to prohibit SD from editing anything in the Middle East, just that which pertains to the conflict in question. you are, of course, free to disagree with me, in which case you should take it to WP:AE for a second opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you say, I was not aware of it. Those edits do appear to be done in good faith and unrelated to conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Administrator

Am I ready to become an administrator if you review my account? WayneSlam 00:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Not even close. You'll know when you're ready. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What do I need to do in order to become an administrator? WayneSlam 00:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)One of the points I believe HJ is trying to make is that if you need to ask, you're not ready. He could be getting at something entirely different though. demize (t · c) 00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@Wayne: A lot more experience and demonstrated dedication would be a good start. You need to be familiar with policy and one of the best ways to develop that kind of knowledge is to spend some time in the project space and the WT namespace and I think a lot of people at the minute would question whether you're mature enough too handle it at the minute, so you'll have to work hard to prove that you are if you want to be an admin, but, if I were you, I would focus on other things for the foreseeable future.

@Demize, that was exactly my point. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How can I do it without any anti-vandal fighting tools to use? Can you run for adminship without rollback? You have to have some vandal fighting in there. What I do is new page patrolling and vandal fighting with the undo button. I need help about article creation since I want to become an autoreviewer. I want to become an admin in late May or early June which may not be enough time to be ready. WayneSlam 01:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to have rollback to become an administrator; however, since your rollback was removed, I recommend acquiring it again before running, just to show the community that you can be trusted again. And you must also work on the things Harry and Demize have brought up, such as maturity and familiarity of policy. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How come this didn't take long after you started editing Wikipedia? WayneSlam 01:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I wasn't familiar with policy at the time. I didn't know what qualities I had to have in order to become an administrator. Plus, I admit, I was slightly power hungry at the time. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is a good part of why you weren't successful. That's not to say that neither of you will ever be admins, but, Wayne, thoughts of adminship are extremely premature at the minute, as they were for Utahraptor at the time of his first RfA. FWiW, adminship really isn't that exciting. 90% of it is pressing the same button over and over to clear out a backlog that nobody notices (until it doesn't get cleared) and that will be back the way it was within a day or two! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

RfA is a tough place, Wayne. A lot of people on RfA, whether they admit to it or not, try to find a reason to oppose rather than try to find reasons to support. They take one mistake and blow it out of proportion. You don't want to give them anything to blow out of proportion, so I think you should wait a while. While waiting, get to know Wikipedia's policies better and work on content. As your mentor, I know you will make a fine administrator someday, Wayne, but it's going to take some time. As we said before, when you're ready, you'll know. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wonder when that day will come. I hope it's this year. An administrator told me I took being an administrator like if it was a prize which something he said similar to what I put here. I do want to be trusted with rollback again, Utahraptor and HJ was the user who gave me rollback. I want to prove the community that I can still succeed with rollback even though I was reported to ANI. WayneSlam 01:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry to butt in but I'm afraid from the tone of that first two sentences in your last message, if you ran at RFA I wouldn't support. As Utahraptor said, that just sounds power-hungry. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So, does that mean I have to be patient? WayneSlam 01:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, you remind me of me in my earlier days of editing. I always figured my ultimate goal was to become an administrator. Then, after this train-wreck of an RfA, I realized that my thinking was incorrect. I then realized that my ultimate goal should be to improve the encyclopedia, and that focusing on becoming an administrator was getting in my way of achieving that goal. That's why I decided to never have an RfA; it kept stopping me from improving the encyclopedia. I'm not saying you should give up on becoming an administrator, I'm simply saying that you should take a break from thinking about being an admin. Take a break and begin focusing on improving the encyclopedia. Isn't that why we're all here? To improve the encyclopedia? Adminship's not that big a deal; what's really important is keeping Wikipedia alive and healthy. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

True, but do you think about making a third RFA soon, Utahraptor? I have not contributed to GOCE for a while and I have done some new page patrolling lately. Anyway, I want to be back in the vandal fighting field as rollbacker. Do you think I'm ready for that, Utahraptor? WayneSlam 02:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to become an administrator get in my way of improving the encyclopedia, so I don't see myself having a third RfA in the near, or even distant, future. At this time, I don't think you're ready, Wayne; however, check back with me at the end of the month and we'll see how you're doing then. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(multiple ec's!) At the minute, Wayne, it does look like you're thinking of adminship as a prize. Wikipedia isn't a race and adminship isn't the gold medal at the end, nor is it particularly exciting. I guess it's easy for me to say that having been an admin for the last 9 months, but being an admin doesn't mean I'm any less fallible than anybody else and it's not some kind of status symbol. Like I say, at least 90% of admin work is really quite boring and 8 of the other 10% just beings unnecessary hassle and drama. Btw, Utahraptor, if you think yours was a train wreck, my first was a disaster, despite what the tally says! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to everyone else's comments wayne, do some article work. I can't find any evidence that you have contributed to any GAs, FAs or DYKs in an meaningful way. While vandal fighting is important, that can't float you though a RfA. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, some users go through peaks and valleys with their RFAs and other stuff. I've nominated one article for DYK that was successful which was Kenny Francis. I contribute to articles of various genres such as sports, hip-hop, and NASCAR but I need to create more articles and I have yet to nominate an article for GA and FA. WayneSlam 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And let me add that with 78% of your edits being "automated" (i.e, your use of Huggle and Twinkle), any RFA you might do would be doomed to failure because most peeps think even 40% is too high for automated edits.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Arb Com

Dear MR Mitchell

I have asked the Arc COm to reconsider your blanket ban of yours with regard to mine making any reversions in Ancient Macedonians article. As I indicated earlier, whilst you were enforcing fairly the 3RR rule by blocking me for 72 hrs, I think it is harsh to entirely block me from reverting. Not that it is my intention to make any further edit wars, however, I think this is a basic right i do not deserve to be stripped, given that it was the sole violatin with regard to that particular article. Please see [3]

Regards

Hxseek (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)